Schulke v. NDDOT, 940 N.W.2d 303

After a high‑speed pursuit on May 11, 2019, Schulke was arrested for fleeing, driving under suspension, reckless endangerment, and possession of drug paraphernalia; officer smelled alcohol.
For safety reasons the officer did not administer field sobriety or screening tests at the scene; Schulke was transported to a correctional facility.
At the facility Schulke refused field sobriety tests, was read the implied‑consent advisory for an onsite screening test and refused that screening test, and also refused an Intoxilyzer breath test.
An administrative hearing officer found Schulke refused both tests and revoked his driving privileges based on the screening‑test refusal.
The district court reversed, holding the word “onsite” in N.D.C.C. § 39‑20‑14(1) unambiguously required the screening request/test to occur at the location of the stop.
The NDDOT appealed; the Supreme Court reversed the district court and reinstated the administrative decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the word “onsite” in N.D.C.C. § 39‑20‑14(1) requires the screening test to be requested/conducted at the traffic stop location	Schulke: “Onsite” unambiguously means at the location of the stop, so a later request at the correctional facility cannot support a refusal	NDDOT: “Onsite” does not limit testing to the stop; the statutory scheme contemplates testing away from the scene in certain circumstances	Court: “Onsite” does not limit requests/tests to the scene; subsections must be harmonized and the advisory references only a “screening test” — administration away from the stop can be valid
Whether the administrative finding that Schulke refused a screening test is supported by the evidence	Schulke: refusal at facility cannot be a statutory refusal if statute requires onsite at the stop	NDDOT: factual record shows officer had reason to request test and Schulke refused after being read the advisory at the facility	Court: Finding of refusal is a question of fact and is supported by a preponderance of the evidence under these circumstances
Whether Schulke is entitled to attorney fees for the appeal under N.D.C.C. § 28‑32‑50(1)	Schulke: seeks fees because he prevailed in district court	NDDOT: court reversed district court; no basis for fee award on appeal	Court: Denied — request for fees on appeal is denied because Court reversed district court

Alvarado v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 932 N.W.2d 911 (N.D. 2019) (courts give great deference to agency decisions suspending driving privileges)
Guthmiller v. Director, N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 906 N.W.2d 73 (N.D. 2018) (review standards for administrative orders)
Roberts v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 863 N.W.2d 529 (N.D. 2015) (distinguishes screening test and breath test and statutory revocation authority)
State v. Woytassek, 491 N.W.2d 709 (N.D. 1992) (requiring arrest before an on‑site screening would undermine the statute’s purpose)
City of Devils Lake v. Grove, 755 N.W.2d 485 (N.D. 2008) (transportation from scene to law enforcement center requires probable cause)
Obrigewitch v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 653 N.W.2d 73 (N.D. 2002) (whether a motorist refused a screening test is a question of fact)